Kermit Roosevelt

This week The Nantucket Independent continues a series of interviews with members of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund to get behind the meeting rhetoric and to learn why they joined the fight to slow erosion of the Bluff in 'Sconset. We encourage and will publish opposing viewpoints in a form of a letter to the editor, a perspective or an article. Email: don@nantucketindependent.com or mail: 15 North Beach St. Nantucket, Mass., 02554 Where is your house in relation to the Bluff?

"We live in a house on Sankaty Road, which is not threatened by erosion."

How long have you been a member of SBPF?

"Since the beginning, I was a founding member of SBPF's predecessor group, which began in 1988 and I have been a member of SBPF since its formation in 1992."

Why did you join?

"My family has been coming to Nantucket for seven generations. We have owned property on the island for more than a century. I have come here all my life and have probably spent more time in 'Sconset than anywhere else. This is my community and it is facing a serious threat."

Respond to the following statement in whatever way you feel is appropriate: You're wasting your money - Mother Nature is going to take your property no matter what…

"There is no intrinsic virtue in being passive in the face of threats from Mother Nature. But we are not trying to fight her. That would be foolish. Rather, we are trying to modify her effects. This is common sense and common practice. To take a mundane example, each of us does this in a small way when we change our clothes in response to changes in the weather. It is the same thing when we install a lightening rod on the roof of our house. Larger groups do it when they construct storm sewers or build dams. Closer to home, Nantucket did it 150 years ago when the harbor was being choked by sand. There were those then who said you can't fight Mother Nature. Fortunately, there were others who chose to pursue a then controversial plan to dredge the harbor rather than let Mother Nature follow her course.

"Beach nourishment is not experimental. It has been successfully employed throughout the world since the early part of the last century. It is today, widely and actively used in hundreds of shoreline communities in the US."

Why isn't moving your house or the houses of those on the ocean side of the Bluff to a new lot inland an option?

"Some houses on Baxter Road have been moved and others may be, but for most of the threatened houses this is not a realistic option. In addressing this issue it is worth noting that these houses were not built on unstable dunes or an eroding bank.

"Because of the recent erosion we tend to forget that the North Bluff, from Codfish Park to Sankaty Head, was stable and fully vegetated for roughly 100 years beginning in the mid-19th century. Many of the houses now threatened have been there for over 100 years and many of the present owners have been in them for at least half that time."

The Patriot's Day storm this year proved fairly convincingly that terracing of the bluff is no match for wind and waves, is it prudent to stop using this form of bluff stabilization or keep going with it and why?

"The terracing on the bluff is intended to help prevent destabilization of the bluff face. It is not designed to protect against wave action in a storm. The intent of beach nourishment is to create a barrier, which will protect the toe of the bluff from wave action by keeping the water a safe distance away. Notably, had the beach nourishment project been installed before the storm, the terracing would not have been damaged."

When the terracing components get washed down the bluff, the waves scatter the timbers and jute fiber matting to beaches north of you and pretty much everywhere around the island, what do you have to say to the people who own those beaches?

"Working with the Conservation Commission, we have designed and had permitted a new terracing system, which will significantly reduce the risk of storm debris. This is intended to hold the terracing intact until the beach nourishment is installed. Once the nourished beach is in place, there should be no danger of storm damage to the terracing."

Much of the opposition to this beach nourishment project is coming from charter and commercial fishermen concerned about losing their livelihood and from wildlife advocates who, along with the fishermen, are worried about how the dredging of sand from the shoal, construction of the new beach and long shore drift of the sand over time is going to impact shorebirds and their food - what do you say to these people?

"We have been talking about this project with the charter and commercial fishermen for the past two years. We have consulted with individuals, groups and organizations. The fishing community was instrumental in directing us to the current site for the sand source, which is not on a shoal but under 30 to 50 feet of water. Our focus has been primarily Nantucket, but we have also included regional groups such as The Cape Cod Hook Fishermen's Association. They have voiced some real and legitimate concerns, which we have addressed. We are working on a construction plan that incorporates methods to avoid or minimize these concerns.

"The nourished beach will have an impact on somewhat less than five percent of the fish habitat within three miles of the 'Sconset shorefront. By way of mitigation, the project design includes the creation of a new fish habitat of a similar size employing materials, which are environmentally compatible. Comparable mitigation has been highly successful in other locations.

"I am confident that ultimately, the project will be supported by the fish and wildlife communities. An eroding beach is a threat to wildlife. A properly nourished beach is a natural habitat."

If the beach nourishment project works, which parts of the island should it be applied to next?

"It does seem to me that one of the compelling arguments for approval of the SBPF beach nourishment project is that it is, in effect, a privately funded demonstration project which, if successful, will provide a model for application to other eroding beaches on Nantucket, the Cape and other Massachusetts shorefront communities."

Is there anything you want to say that I haven't talked about today, anything else on your mind that concerns SBPF and its efforts?

"Individuals may differ about the exact causes but it is an inescapable fact that the past 30 years have seen a significant increase in the erosion taking place from the 'Sconset sewer beds to Sesachacha Pond. We have already lost a street and five houses in Codfish Park. Ten houses on Baxter Road have been moved and now Sankaty Lighthouse is about to be moved. If nothing is done there will be further, more dramatic and irrevocable losses and the character of 'Sconset will be forever changed.

"Given these facts, I believe it is obvious that something will be done. The only question is what it will be. I believe it is clear that the most environmentally sound and economically sensible response is beach nourishment. If, however, the SBPF project is not approved, we can expect to see a series of uncoordinated, individual ad hoc measures, which will inevitably involve the Town in protracted litigation and ultimately be less environmentally

sensitive." I